I think half of the Truthers in the world are from Canada. Something is fucked up with that country.

Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:45 pm

firefly

Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal

xGasPricesx wrote: I was just being funny. I was done trying to have an "informative discussion" when you had responded to me earlier rather insultingly saying that line about thinking for yourself. I was actually probably done with the conversation before that, since I'm incredibly sick of this topic, but that was really the last nail in the coffin.

You're right, I do that myself sometimes - insults.

And with all due respect, if you are in fact "done" with this discussion perhaps you should post somewhere else? Do as you wish but by posting in this thread, addressing this topic it hardly seems like you are "done" with this debate.

Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:52 pm

xGasPricesx

Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1612

firefly wrote:
You're right, I do that myself sometimes - insults.

Why get all pissy whenever someone else does it then? I only brought up that comment because you seemed to be so offended that I had been making jokes and derailing the "informative discussions".

Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:59 pm

Elohuym

Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 147

firefly wrote: Breakreep, Thank you for taking the time to copy/paste all this information. I'm happy that this is turning into an actual discussion instead of "you're stupid", "no, you're stupid" nonsense which usually happens when talking about 9/11. Let's hope everyone keeps it that way and goes into the information with open minds.

I read all the parts in bold and noticed it contains information that is contradictory to what hundreds of architects and engineers are saying. It states that temperatures can melt metal if high enough, but didn't provide any evidence that the fires WERE that hot. In fact, hundreds of architects and engineers are providing evidence proving the opposite.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Let's try to keep this discussion focued on information and not bias.

you don't really know what any of this means do you?

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:00 pm

firefly

Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal

xGasPricesx wrote:

firefly wrote:
You're right, I do that myself sometimes - insults.

Why get all pissy whenever someone else does it then? I only brought up that comment because you seemed to be so offended that I had been making jokes and derailing the "informative discussions".

It wasn't that I was offended. I was just trying to assess where you were coming from with that statement.

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:05 pm

firefly

Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal

Elohuym wrote: you don't really know what any of this means do you?

The stuff that Breakreep posted was difficult to understand. This stuff is all pretty simple physics, no? Did you even read it?

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:07 pm

xGasPricesx

Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1612

firefly wrote:

xGasPricesx wrote:

firefly wrote:
You're right, I do that myself sometimes - insults.

Why get all pissy whenever someone else does it then? I only brought up that comment because you seemed to be so offended that I had been making jokes and derailing the "informative discussions".

It wasn't that I was offended. I was just trying to assess where you were coming from with that statement.

.
Alright, fair enough. I will let you guys get back to it then.

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:09 pm

firefly

Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal

Quote: And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

What makes more sense?

Let's say fire did melt the steel bars to create the collapse. How do you think that would happen?

1. That all four framed steel bars melted at the exact same time on the top floors so that they fall perfectly ontop of each floor to bring enough weight down for an almost instantaneous fall?

2. It would happen at different sections at a time causing the building to fall over sporatically all over the place?

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:22 pm

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

firefly wrote:

Quote: And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

What makes more sense?

Let's say fire did melt the steel bars to create the collapse. How do you think that would happen?

1. That all four framed steel bars melted at the exact same time on the top floors so that they fall perfectly ontop of each floor to bring enough weight down for an almost instantaneous fall?

2. It would happen at different sections at a time causing the building to fall over sporatically all over the place?

Do the rings fall straight down or sporadically all over the place?

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:47 pm

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

Here's a hint:

Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:47 pm

Elohuym

Joined: 11 Dec 2002
Posts: 147

firefly wrote:

Quote: And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

What makes more sense?

Let's say fire did melt the steel bars to create the collapse. How do you think that would happen?

1. That all four framed steel bars melted at the exact same time on the top floors so that they fall perfectly ontop of each floor to bring enough weight down for an almost instantaneous fall?

2. It would happen at different sections at a time causing the building to fall over sporatically all over the place?

:lol: What? Did you just made all of that up? I don't think anyone has ever claimed steel melted beside truthers.

First of all the list wasn't compiled by "hundreds of architects and engineers." It's made up by the moronic charlatan Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth. It's been addressed and debunked ad nauseum. Here's a point by point debunking by one of your own:

Elohuym wrote: I think half of the Truthers in the world are from Canada. Something is fucked up with that country.

We're just bored.

Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:26 pm

firefly

Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal

Elohuym wrote: :lol: What? Did you just made all of that up? I don't think anyone has ever claimed steel melted beside truthers.

First of all the list wasn't compiled by "hundreds of architects and engineers." It's made up by the moronic charlatan Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth. It's been addressed and debunked ad nauseum. Here's a point by point debunking by one of your own:

it's been handed to Gage by several people and never been addressed as far as I know.

Have you ever seen a burning building fall down? I have. It falls apart piece by piece all over the place. I thought the official theory said that the fire melted the steel bars which caused the collapse. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. I'm not pretending to be an engineer or anything. I'm just listening to information and trying my best to make sense of it.

I'm going to read the rest of the letter soon, I have to help make dinner now. So far where I am in the letter I don't see it being debunk though.